This thread is about who’s eating up the health care budget in America. Turns out that 1% of patients accounted for a whopping 21% of US healthcare spending! The top 5% accounted for 50% of all health care spending! Of course most of these 5%ers are the elderly and middle aged couch potatoes. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-americans-made-50-u-195410001.html

How do y'all think there is any chance of paying for these 5% ers in the future? The baby boomers are hitting the hospitals now and there isn’t enough generation XYZ to subsidize all the bills. How do you solve this cost problem?

Kingbee made a good point that what hospitals bill is not what they really collect, however regardless of their billing shenanigans, the fact of the matter is US health care spending is now over 15% of GDP and rising. Is that sustainable? At what % of GDP does it bankrupt the country?

Well we could do away with social security and make everyone buy their own health insurance, that should get rid of a lot of the elderly, obese and the chronically ill. Doctors and hospitals can't work for free so most of them would 'go out of business'. In a couple of generation though, we would be a thriving robust country.

>>At what % of GDP does it bankrupt the country1) How is Canada and Europe handling their health care?2) As our Gross Domestic Product keeps dwindling (read IMPORTS - CHINA) and WE continue shifting to a service based economy?

I got an Idea: we could trade Hawaii and Taiwan to the Chinese for a couple trillion. That should help out in the short term.

again...Romney is making his money off investments, not wages. i know you are having trouble with that, but there is a reason investment income is taxed at a lower level.

we already gave you ideas to bring down the cost of health care, but you apparently don't like them. what are your ideas?

do you think a state (federal) run medical system would be efficient and cost less? on what current government program would you base such hopes?

Quote

1) How is Canada and Europe handling their health care?

depends on the country. Germany is doing ok with theirs at the moment. they have a better economy than most of Europe. they have a different work ethic that most of the other Europeans also....however, they are strained by the inclusion of the east Germans who were basically all state welfare recipients. that has improved somewhat, but it would not take much to push Germany over if the other European countries don't get it together.

look at the other countries. the big thing that is breaking them is the social welfare state. then once the people have been given stuff, there is no way to cut back without them rioting in the streets. i know more about the NHS in England because my sister has lived there for years. if is horribly expensive and they are falling behind in both equipment and procedures. my sisters MIL is diabetic. the care and instruction she gets is what we would have given 30 years ago. medications for various diseases are not available there and they are meds that we consider standard of care here. care is rationed. if you are obese, you may not be considered for joint replacement, etc. you can get private insurance and it will get you to the head of the line and get you better meds, but it is expensive and you can't buy it to cover pre-existing conditions.

Canada is a little different also. they have a comparatively small population. they make a good bit of money exporting to us their oil and timber because we won't use our own. for basic care, their system seems to work fairly well, but it is very expensive. for things other than basics, they fill our border state hospitals for care....if they can afford it.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

>No, this thread isn’t about OWS. I think we’ve already proved OWS was right Romney confirmed today he’s also barely paying taxes; at a 15% rate.

Is having a President being smart enough to become wealthy a problem with you? If the answer is yes, do you also think that people in the Senate and House should not be wealthy?Do you also think it's wrong for non elected people to live high on taxpayer money.

Is having a President being smart enough to become wealthy a problem with you?

if that were the case, Obama would be a problem also.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

Hmmmm, what about the out of control costs for medical bills? If we cut Romney’s tax bill from 15% to 0% would that help or hurt?

No Sterling, I don’t have a problem with Romney being rich. Hopefully he will make our entire nation richer too if he gets elected. Of all the Republican candidates, he’s the only one I’ve seen that has any sense at all. Seems neutron Newt might have problem with him being rich though?

One reason investments are taxes at a lower rate than income is that the majority of the people that live off their investments are retired and not working anymore. Another reason is that that money had already been taxes once before the investor gets anything. Remember corporate taxes. Then what ever is left over is paid out to the investors/ owners.

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

And the other reason is the top 1% own the politicians who set the rates

my MIL gets investment dividends. that's a large part of her income. if you have retirement investments, it will be yours also. then you'll screem that you don't think it's fair to be taxed so much in your old age....on money you invested that was already taxed.

another reason investment return is taxed lower is that it encourages investment. of course, if you are not investing for your future and you expect the rest of us to look after you, i can see how it might make you mad that they are not taking more.

bluebee, you entire argument stems from the premise that it is the governments to take. it is not.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

bluebee, your entire argument stems from the premise that it is the governments to take.

No……that is not my premise!

My premise is we should be paying for whatever we’re buying. Unfortunately the Republicans have the welfare mindset that they can get whatever they want without paying for it. They spend and spend while cutting taxes.

Instead of being responsible, the Republicans just want to pass the bill onto the kids, grandkids, great grandkids, and beyond. As you pointed out before we’re STILL paying for Reagan’s spending spree, and that was 30 years ago! We’ll probably still be paying principle and interest on all of Dubya’s spending well into 2100. Going to war and cutting taxes to pay for it? Hmmmm, how fiscally sound is that?

Since the politicians don’t have the spine to be responsible, I think there should be a law that forces them to balance the budget and pay for what they spend. That might also keep them from spending so much in the first place as well.

""As you pointed out before we’re STILL paying for Reagan’s spending spree, and that was 30 years ago! We’ll probably still be paying principle and interest on all of Dubya’s spending well into 2100""

Seeing as how the monkey has spent more in 3 years than ALL the Republican presidents combined, that is a pretty weak argument you have there.

Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

My premise is we should be paying for whatever we’re buying. Unfortunately the Republicans have the welfare mindset that they can get whatever they want without paying for it. They spend and spend while cutting taxes.

Instead of being responsible, the Republicans just want to pass the bill onto the kids, grandkids, great grandkids, and beyond. As you pointed out before we’re STILL paying for Reagan’s spending spree, and that was 30 years ago! We’ll probably still be paying principle and interest on all of Dubya’s spending well into 2100. Going to war and cutting taxes to pay for it? Hmmmm, how fiscally sound is that?

you seem to think it's responsible to tax more. did you ever consider that it would be responsible to spend less?

i will agree with you that there are some republicans who don't get it. we are trying to replace those, as we try to replace this president...who has spent more and created more debt than any before him.

if you look at revenue charts, cutting taxes under bush did not decrease revenue. historically, it does not. this is something Kennedy made note of as he cut taxes. cutting taxes stimulates growth and increases revenue. that's why Obama didn't do away with the Bush tax cuts. that said, you can stimulate all you want, but if you are outspending revenue...as most admins do, you create debt. FDR had one of the greatest spending sprees ever seen....up to this president. his spending to GDP ratio was the highest....until now.

so the lesson is not that we need to tax more. we need to spend less. until we get people in Washington who understand that, we will continue to be in debt.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....